Scan barcode
schomj's review against another edition
4.0
Written in journalistic style, so it's very readable, but also includes a lot of references and notes for further exploration, which satisfies my nerdy heart.
rayne_1906's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
2.25
4 hours 12 minutes - This book focuses on a very relevant and important issue, but unfortunately is very boring to read. The author has certainly done her research on the topic, but it is presented in a way which is repetitive and dull most of the time. Dusenbery does cover a lot of ground on sexism in medicine, and how this might intersect with other things such as race, class, transphobia, etc., but many parts of this book could have been cut without any impact on the message the book is trying to convey. Definitely makes me want to read more into the subject though.
Content Warnings
Minor: Cancer, Chronic illness, Death, Drug abuse, Drug use, Infertility, Mental illness, Miscarriage, Misogyny, Panic attacks/disorders, Racism, Sexism, Terminal illness, Transphobia, Vomit, Medical content, Dementia, Medical trauma, and Pregnancy
celenabean's review against another edition
4.0
Honestly, don't read this book if you're not willing to feel really frustrated.
That said, I think this book did a very thorough job of looking at how the medical world still has ways to go in how it researches and treats illnesses in women.
I will note that when this book says "women" the focus is really on cis women, however I will give the author credit that she does apologize for that in her introduction and does make note (albeit quickly) of the problems that trans women face when dealing with doctors about illness.
Outside of that, I think that this book does look at the issue through the lens of intersectionality, and discusses how women of colour, specifically black women, have to deal with racial stereotyping from doctors in addition to the gendered stereotyping. It talks about how doctor's treat thin women as though nothing is wrong with them because they "look healthy" and how fat women are told that anything wrong with them can be fixed with "just losing weight."
This book also deep dives into various illnesses that predominantly appear in women and how little doctor's will properly diagnose or treat these illnesses.And I found myself being able to think of people in my own life who have had some of these illnesses and have struggled to be diagnosed and it makes me see those moments in a much clearer (angrier) light.
Basically, this book gives anecdotal as well as statistical proof that doctors need to step it the fuck up.
That said, I think this book did a very thorough job of looking at how the medical world still has ways to go in how it researches and treats illnesses in women.
I will note that when this book says "women" the focus is really on cis women, however I will give the author credit that she does apologize for that in her introduction and does make note (albeit quickly) of the problems that trans women face when dealing with doctors about illness.
Outside of that, I think that this book does look at the issue through the lens of intersectionality, and discusses how women of colour, specifically black women, have to deal with racial stereotyping from doctors in addition to the gendered stereotyping. It talks about how doctor's treat thin women as though nothing is wrong with them because they "look healthy" and how fat women are told that anything wrong with them can be fixed with "just losing weight."
This book also deep dives into various illnesses that predominantly appear in women and how little doctor's will properly diagnose or treat these illnesses.And I found myself being able to think of people in my own life who have had some of these illnesses and have struggled to be diagnosed and it makes me see those moments in a much clearer (angrier) light.
Basically, this book gives anecdotal as well as statistical proof that doctors need to step it the fuck up.
meghan_is_reading's review against another edition
Fascinating read. I had mysterious chest pains earlier this year (2020 man), so I waited a day, called the telenurse, made an appt at a walk-in, got sent to emerg, waited 9 hrs doing tests only to emerge around 1am after finding out nothing - but I probably wasn't dying of something they knew about! Glad I didn't get the run-around some of these women did. But does it ever entrench the mistrust of the medical system that only seems to want to know which drugs will make you go away. (Which is better than "go away you only want drugs!" But still not helpful)
Dusenbery runs through a number of illness and conditions that get misdiagnosed or ignored if women complain about having them and the general lack of sex analysed research to help define how certain illnesses and drugs reacted to female bodies and hormones. Some of this information I knew, but was explored in more depth and some I had no idea.
Dusenbery runs through a number of illness and conditions that get misdiagnosed or ignored if women complain about having them and the general lack of sex analysed research to help define how certain illnesses and drugs reacted to female bodies and hormones. Some of this information I knew, but was explored in more depth and some I had no idea.
melodine's review against another edition
4.0
Fascinating book. Just writing this review so I remember some main/interesting points. Also I would like to say while this books point out the errors of medicine and medical practitioners, it is not a blame book. Yes doctors make errors but it is an imperfect system, with imperfect people, and everyone has their own biases/prejudices/preconceived notions that they are not always aware of. I would say the most important take away from this is to make sure you are advocating for yourself because ultimately it is your life and no one else will care so much.
Women react differently to different medications and present diseases differently and have diseases that are more common to them then to men. Even after the science community was aware of this, women would often not be included in studies as it was more effort to account for the difference in genders. There was also a time when all women who had the possibility of being pregnant were not even allowed in the studies at all as they were not trusted to make their own decisions on participating or not.
Many doctors are aware that diagnostic mistakes are made but very few are willing to assume they have made some, partly because they get so little feedback. Patients are unlikely to return once they have found answers elsewhere and so doctors are left to assume their original diagnosis was correct.
The amount of privilege a person has can greatly affect our knowledge of diseases. There are whole illnesses that were considered to just affect well off white women because those were the women who had the time, money, and/or support to go to multiple doctors if they were ignored or dismissed at first.
When a doctor cannot find any physical symptoms and all testing comes back as normal, then a number of them will decide it is psychosomatic and no testing is needed to make that diagnosis. A whole variety of symptoms can be swept under this diagnosis. Also once a patient has been diagnosed with a psychosomatic disorder it can end up haunting them and coloring future physician opinions. An interesting note was that there were cases of psychologists making a physical diagnosis, or at least saying that whatever was happening with the patient was not psychosomatic.
Doctors are also prone to assume any trouble a woman has is related to her reproductive capabilities, so either menstruation, or pregnant, or postpartum, or menopause instead of looking further. There are countless examples of kidney stones, bursting cysts, appendicitis, and even chronic diseases that have been overlooked as assumption that everything is normal when a woman is in pain or tired. This is not just something from doctors as it is general knowledge that being a woman hurts and having a period hurts and so how many times are we as women needlessly suffering because we think it falls under the realm of normal.
Ovarian cancer was once considered a silent killer and it was in all the documentation that there were no symptoms from it in spite of women stating differently. Women with ovarian cancer were told their symptoms could not possibly be from the cancer because it was symptom less. It got to the point where at one talk on ovarian cancer, the speaker doctor was talking about it's lack of symptoms and audience protested that he was wrong. Another doctor in the audience decided to do a survey on the women so this could be documented and there was a greater than 100% response rate as the women passed the survey onto other ovarian cancer survivors they know.
Women react differently to different medications and present diseases differently and have diseases that are more common to them then to men. Even after the science community was aware of this, women would often not be included in studies as it was more effort to account for the difference in genders. There was also a time when all women who had the possibility of being pregnant were not even allowed in the studies at all as they were not trusted to make their own decisions on participating or not.
Many doctors are aware that diagnostic mistakes are made but very few are willing to assume they have made some, partly because they get so little feedback. Patients are unlikely to return once they have found answers elsewhere and so doctors are left to assume their original diagnosis was correct.
The amount of privilege a person has can greatly affect our knowledge of diseases. There are whole illnesses that were considered to just affect well off white women because those were the women who had the time, money, and/or support to go to multiple doctors if they were ignored or dismissed at first.
When a doctor cannot find any physical symptoms and all testing comes back as normal, then a number of them will decide it is psychosomatic and no testing is needed to make that diagnosis. A whole variety of symptoms can be swept under this diagnosis. Also once a patient has been diagnosed with a psychosomatic disorder it can end up haunting them and coloring future physician opinions. An interesting note was that there were cases of psychologists making a physical diagnosis, or at least saying that whatever was happening with the patient was not psychosomatic.
Doctors are also prone to assume any trouble a woman has is related to her reproductive capabilities, so either menstruation, or pregnant, or postpartum, or menopause instead of looking further. There are countless examples of kidney stones, bursting cysts, appendicitis, and even chronic diseases that have been overlooked as assumption that everything is normal when a woman is in pain or tired. This is not just something from doctors as it is general knowledge that being a woman hurts and having a period hurts and so how many times are we as women needlessly suffering because we think it falls under the realm of normal.
Ovarian cancer was once considered a silent killer and it was in all the documentation that there were no symptoms from it in spite of women stating differently. Women with ovarian cancer were told their symptoms could not possibly be from the cancer because it was symptom less. It got to the point where at one talk on ovarian cancer, the speaker doctor was talking about it's lack of symptoms and audience protested that he was wrong. Another doctor in the audience decided to do a survey on the women so this could be documented and there was a greater than 100% response rate as the women passed the survey onto other ovarian cancer survivors they know.
charitytinnin's review against another edition
5.0
Dusenbery does a great job of showing the self-fulfilling cycle that leads most in medicine to disbelieve women and their symptoms. (I have one very good doctor who I hope never retires because it took years to find him.)
Her main case? We’ve not been studying women in medical research for all that long which means the evidential data isn’t there to back up the anecdotal experiences of women, which means they don’t get studied, etc. etc. etc.
I’m thankful for all the specialists she interviewed for the book who are doing research and pushing for more education. (I also personally appreciated that she covered hypothyroidism, endometriosis, PMDD, and ME/CFS.)
Her main case? We’ve not been studying women in medical research for all that long which means the evidential data isn’t there to back up the anecdotal experiences of women, which means they don’t get studied, etc. etc. etc.
I’m thankful for all the specialists she interviewed for the book who are doing research and pushing for more education. (I also personally appreciated that she covered hypothyroidism, endometriosis, PMDD, and ME/CFS.)
smacha14's review against another edition
5.0
"Our intersecting identities may make the particular stereotypes that hurt us different - in some cases, even diametrically opposed - and yet somehow we so often end up in a similar place: fighting to have our reports of our own symptoms trusted and taken seriously"
This was a well-researched book that clearly lays out a huge problem with medicine: a glaring gender bias. I knew this existed, as sexism reaches every part of society, but I had no idea how bad it was. Because I have been fortunate to be healthy throughout my life, I've never had to deal with a doctor dismissing my symptoms or ignoring my intuitions about my own body. This book will make you angry and frustrated that a field that is supposed to be driven by facts and data could be so ridiculously foolish and negligent.
This was a well-researched book that clearly lays out a huge problem with medicine: a glaring gender bias. I knew this existed, as sexism reaches every part of society, but I had no idea how bad it was. Because I have been fortunate to be healthy throughout my life, I've never had to deal with a doctor dismissing my symptoms or ignoring my intuitions about my own body. This book will make you angry and frustrated that a field that is supposed to be driven by facts and data could be so ridiculously foolish and negligent.
susanm_82's review against another edition
5.0
. 5/5⭐️ I’ve been reading this book basically forever - partially because it’s pretty heavy and partially because it’s very dense. But it’s a great read and comes highly recommended. Even with my deep background in healthcare, there was quite a bit in here I didn’t know - or at least didn’t have sources for - and this book shines a light on the disparities for women and people of color within our systems. Many of the other books I e read have chapters dedicated to healthcare but this expands greatly on those.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CBYmLk5ArQM/
https://www.instagram.com/p/CBYmLk5ArQM/